/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/070910.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, September 10, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 179 Headlines ALOHA HOUSEWARES: Recalls Electric Heaters Due to Fire Hazard B&F SYSTEM: Recalls Emergency Tool Kits for Fire, Shock Hazards CENTENNIAL COMMS: No Ruling Yet on Motion to Certify Fraud Suit COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Faces Homebuyers’ Fraud Lawsuit in Tenn. FLORIDA: Trial of Suit Over Canker Eradication Program Set Oct. GOLD FIELDS: Continues to Face Suits by Quapaw Tribes in Okla. MARS PETCARE: Recalls Dog Food on Possible Contamination MERRILL LYNCH: $125M Research Reports Suit Settlement Approved NAM TAI: N.Y. Court Denies Class Status for N.Y. Securities Suit NCS PEARSON: Settles SAT Scoring Error Lawsuit for $2.85M NISSAN: Tex. Judge’s Son Withdraws Suit Over Odometers NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Settles Lawsuit Over 2006 Derailment in Ala. NORTHWESTERN CORP: Still Faces Suit Over Montana Power Shakeup NORTHWESTERN CORP: Awaits Ruling on Fees in S.D. Securities Suit OHALEE INC: Recalls FA-A70 Youth ATVs Lacking Parts, Label PHH CORP: Md. Court Partially Dismisses Suit Over $1.8B Buyout PHH CORP: Continues to Faces Several N.J Securities Fraud Suits PLEXUS CORP: Faces Wis. Suits Over England Plant Closure PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Faces Suit in Ore. Over Patient Data Theft QC HOLDINGS: Settles Lawsuit by Loan Applicant in Arizona QC HOLDINGS: Mo. Court Mulls Arbitration Bid in Customers' Suit QC HOLDINGS: Still Faces N.C. Consumer Suit Over Payday Loans RAIT FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in E.D. Pa. SANOFI-AVENTIS US: New Plaintiffs Named in Discrimination Suit SUPREMA SPECIALTIES: Auditor, Underwriters Settle Suit for $19M TOYS R US: Recalls Coloring Cases that Exceed Lead Standard * Bryan Cave Hires Senior Associate for U.K. Practice New Securities Fraud Cases AMERICAN MORTGAGE: Murray Frank Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit QIAO XING: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y. TWEEN BRANDS: Schiffrin Barroway Files O. Securities Fraud Suit ********* ALOHA HOUSEWARES: Recalls Electric Heaters Due to Fire Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------- Aloha Housewares, Inc. of Arlington, Texas, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 281,000 “Aloha Breeze” portable electric heaters. The company said the heater can overheat, posing a fire hazard. Aloha Housewares has received seven reports of heaters melting, smoking or catching fire, including one report of minor property damage. No injuries have been reported. The recalled electric heaters are white-colored with the name “Aloha Breeze” printed on the front. The recall includes model number 05226 with date codes of 07/05, 08/05 and 11/05. The model number and date code are printed on the silver label located on the bottom of the heater. These recalled portable electric heaters were manufactured in China and are being sold at Wal-Mart stores nationwide from July 2005 to July 2007 for about $15. Pictures of recalled portable electric heaters: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07296a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07296b.jpg Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled heaters immediately and contact the firm for instructions on receiving a free replacement. For additional information, call Aloha Housewares at (800) 295-4448 between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or send an e-mail to ahitexaslg@aol.com B&F SYSTEM: Recalls Emergency Tool Kits for Fire, Shock Hazards --------------------------------------------------------------- B&F System Inc., of Dallas, Texas, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 43,000 emergency tool kits. The company said booster cables in the recalled kits can have undersized wiring and inadequate connections, posing a fire and shock hazard to consumers. No injuries have been reported. The recalled emergency tool kits have booster cables in combination with other tools and safety equipment. The recall includes the following models: -- #MTHEK41 - Yorkcraft 41 piece SAE & Metric kit -- #MTHEKSM - Yorkcraft 6 piece kit -- #MTHEKREF - Yorkcraft 15 piece kit -- MTHEK15 - Yorkcraft 15 piece kit -- #MTEKIT2 - Yorkcraft Emergency Tool Kit These recalled emergency tool kits were manufactured in China and are being sold at flea markets and various Internet sites nationwide from June 2003 through May 2007 for between $5 and $45. Picture of recalled emergency tool kits: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07297.jpg Consumers are advised to stop using the booster cables in the recalled kits immediately and contact the firm to receive a refund for the cost of the cables. For more information, contact B&F System toll-free at (877) 586-2926 between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit http://www.bnfusa.com CENTENNIAL COMMS: No Ruling Yet on Motion to Certify Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The decision of a court with respect to class certification of a suit over billing practices filed against Centennial Communications Corp. in Louisiana state court is still pending. In one of several lawsuits against the company, plaintiffs have alleged breach of contract, misrepresentation or unfair practice claims relating to its billing practices, including rounding up of partial minutes of use to full-minute increments, billing send to end, and billing for unanswered and dropped calls. The plaintiffs in these cases have not alleged any specific monetary damages. They are seeking certification as a class action. A hearing on class certification in one of these cases was held on Sept. 2, 2003 in a state court in Louisiana. Subsequent to such hearing, a new judge was assigned to the case and the plaintiffs renewed their motion seeking class-action status in December 2004. In 2006, a new judge was assigned to the case. The decision of the court with respect to class certification is still pending. The company reported no new development in the matter in its Aug. 9, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2007. Centennial Communications Corp. -- http://www.centennialcom.com-- is a regional wireless and broadband telecommunications service provider serving over 1.1 million wireless customers and approximately 419,500 access line equivalents in markets covering approximately 12.6 million Net Pops in the U.S. and Puerto Rico. COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Faces Homebuyers’ Fraud Lawsuit in Tenn. ---------------------------------------------------------- Homebuyers filed a class action against Countrywide Home Loans and Countrywide Home Loans Servicing in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiffs Westley Chrisman and his wife Linda Peels Chrisman accuse the lender of: (1) defrauding homebuyers by demanding extra money on monthly mortgage payments; (2) crediting too much money to interest and not enough to principal to make it appear that the plaintiffs were in arrears; and (3) then threatening them with foreclosure. Plaintiffs filed the suit on behalf of all persons who obtained home loans of any type from any original lender (including but not limited to CHL), which loans and/or the servicing rights thereto were acquired by, retained by, and/or assigned to CHL and/or CS any time from Sept. 1, 2001 through March 18, 2005, inclusive. They want the court to rule on: (a) whether CHL and CS fraudulently concealed from plaintiffs and the classes the true nature of adjustments made for to their principal account balances; (b) whether CHL and CS in violation of a statutory or legal duty concealed from plaintiffs and the classes the true nature of adjustments made for to their principal account balances; (c) whether the principal account adjustment facts CHL and CS concealed from the plaintiffs and the classes are material facts; (d) whether, as a result of CHL's and CS's concealment of and/or failure to disclose material facts, plaintiffs and the classes acted to their detriment or failed to act to their detriment; (e) whether CHL and CS engaged in unfair competition or unfair and/or deceptive acts or practices when they failed to allocate 100% of payments received to principal and interest; (f) whether CHL and CS engaged in unfair competition or unfair and/or deceptive acts or practices when they failed to allocate the proper amount of payments received to principal; (g) whether CHL and CS engaged in unfair competition or unfair and/or deceptive acts or practices when they collected more from each post-reset date payment that they legally were entitled to because the reset monthly payments were overstated as a result of being calculated using wrongly overstated principal balances; (h) whether CHL and CS engaged in unfair competition or unfair and/or deceptive acts or practices when they made it appear that accounts of the class were seriously in arrears when in fact they were not; (i) whether CHL and CS engaged in unfair competition or unfair and/or deceptive acts or practices when they assessed against and/or collected from the classes late charges in excess of amounts allowed by law, the Notes, and/or the operative facts; (j) whether CHL and CS engaged in unfair competition or unfair and/or deceptive acts or practices when they allocated improper and excessive amounts of payments received to interest; (k) whether CHL and CS engaged in unfair competition or unfair and/or deceptive acts or practices when they changed due dates and payment receipt dates; (m) whether CHL, and/or CS engaged in unfair competition or unfair and/or deceptive acts or practices when in the course of their early collection acts, they wrongly and without factual bases therefor, demanded extra- contractual prepayments; (n) whether CHL, and/or CS engaged in unfair competition or unfair and/or deceptive acts or practices when they engaged in early collection acts; (o) whether CHL, and/or CS violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act when they engaged in early collection acts; (p) whether CHL, and/or CS engaged in a civil conspiracy with respect to their early and other collection acts; (q) whether plaintiffs and the class are entitled to compensatory damages and the amount of such damages; (r) whether as a result of CHL's and CS's recklessness and fraudulent, knowing, and/or intentional acts, plaintiffs and the class are entitled to punitive damages, and the amount of such damages; (s) whether CHL and CS should be declared financially responsible for notifying all class members of the harm they have suffered and their rights under this action; (t) whether the early collection practices of CHL and CS were unfair or deceptive; and (u) whether CHL and CS violated the rights of class members when defendants exacted late fees and charges upon the sale of a class members' property instead of collecting late fees from a debtor during the life of the loan qas required by applicable law. Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows: -- certification of the class and any subclasses that the court deems appropriate; -- compensatory damages in an amount sufficient to compensate the plaintiffs and the class for the actual damages incurred by them as a result of the acts and omissions of CHL and CS; -- statutory damages to the extent allowed by law for the plaintiff and the class for the acts and omissions of CHL and CS; -- consequential damages to the extent allowed by law for the plaintiffs and the class for the consequential damages suffered by them as a result of the acts and omissions of CHL and CS; -- under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act and the consumer protection statutes of other states, damages as allowed by those statutes, including punitive or exemplary damages, double or treble damages, penalties, attorneys fees, and expenses of litigation; -- prejudgment interest at the maximum legal rate; -- punitive or exemplary damages for the willful, intentional, malicious, and/or reckless actions of CHL, and CS according to the proof; -- reasonable attorneys fees and expenses of litigation as allowed by all applicable laws, and/or from the common fund for payment of damages and costs, and payment for all expenses associated with administration of the common fund; -- a declaration of the financial responsibility of CHL and/or CS, for the cost of class notification regarding the acts and omissions of CHL and CS; -- a declaration that the early collection and other acts of CHL, and/or CS are illegal and an injunction against them all preventing them from perpetrating such acts in the future; -- an order requiring CHL and CS to correct the accounts of the plaintiffs and the class; -- election of remedy where appropriate by plaintiffs be allowed; -- a trial by a jury of 12 persons; and -- such other and further relief as the court deems just and appropriate. The suit is "Westley Chrisman et al. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Representing plaintiffs are: Richard Baker, ESq. Law office of Richard Baker 706 Walnut Street, Suite 301 Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Phone: 865-633-6066 - and - David B. Hamilton William P. Price, III, J.D., C.P.A. 1810 Merchant Drive Knoxville, TN 37912 Phone: 865-219-9250 FLORIDA: Trial of Suit Over Canker Eradication Program Set Oct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action filed against the state in 2002 over its canker eradication program is scheduled to go to trial on Oct. 15, Palm The (Fla.) Beach Post reports. Thousands of Palm Beach County homeowners who lost healthy citrus trees to the program have been notified of the trial, the report said. Deadline to request for exclusion in the class is Oct. 12. The class includes all property owners who lost trees that were not infected, but that were within 1,900 feet of a canker-infected tree. The class period is from Jan. 1, 2000 to January 2006 when the canker eradication program was ended. The October trial will decide on liability; damages would be determined during a subsequent trial. A 12-member jury will decide the "full compensation" due to the homeowners. The canker program attempted to stop the spread of the bacterial disease throughout the Florida citrus industry by eradicating infected trees as well as healthy ones that were considered exposed to the bacterium. The suit argued that the Florida Department of Agriculture did not adequately compensate owners of healthy citrus trees for their removal. It was filed against the state Department of Agriculture on behalf of David and Lillian Mendez of Palm Beach County. The plaintiffs' lead attorney is Robert Gilbert of Coral Gables. GOLD FIELDS: Continues to Face Suits by Quapaw Tribes in Okla. -------------------------------------------------------------- Gold Fields Mining, LLC, a subsidiary of Peabody Energy Corp., and two other companies continue to face two class actions seeking medical monitoring and relocation programs for people allegedly exposed to lead. Plaintiffs have asserted claims predicated on allegations of intentional lead exposure by the defendants and are seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages and the implementation of medical monitoring and relocation programs for the affected individuals. Gold Fields is also a defendant, along with other companies, in several personal injury lawsuits involving over 50 children, arising out of the same lead mill operations. Plaintiffs in these actions are seeking compensatory and punitive damages for alleged personal injuries from lead exposure. In December 2003, the Quapaw Indian tribe and certain Quapaw land owners filed a class action against Gold Fields and five other companies. Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on a variety of theories. Gold Fields has filed a third-party complaint against the U.S., and other parties. In February 2005, the state of Oklahoma on behalf of itself and several other parties sent a notice to Gold Fields and other companies regarding a possible natural resources damage claim. All of the lawsuits are pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. The company reported no development in the case at its Aug. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. The suit is "Cole, et al. v. Asarco Inc., et al., Case no. 4:03-cv-00327-JOE- PJC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma under Judge James O. Ellison. Representing the plaintiffs are: Tammy R. Dodson, Esq. Donnamarie Antoinette Landsberg, Esq. Speer Law Firm PA 104 W 9th St., Ste. 305 Kansas City, MO 64105 Phone: 816-472-3560 Fax: 816-421-2150 E-mail: tdodson@speerlawfirm.com - and - Tony Wayne Edwards, Esq. Stipe Law Firm P.O. BOX 1369 McAlester, OK 74501-1369 Phone: 918-423-0421 Fax: 918-423-0266 E-mail: twedwards@stipelaw.com Representing the Company are: Stacy L. Acord, Esq. Robert Joseph Joyce, Esq. Archer Scott McDaniel, Esq. Chris A. Paul, Esq. Joyce Paul & McDaniel, PC 1717 S. Boulder, Ste. 200 Tulsa, OK 74119 Phone: 918-599-0700 Fax: 918-732-5370 E-mail: sacord@jpm-law.com rjoyce@jpm-law.com Smcdaniel@jpm-law.com cpaul@jpm-law.com - and - Mark Douglas Anstoetter, Esq. Stanley D. Davis, Esq. John K. Sherk, Esq. Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP 2555 Grand Blvd. Kansas City, MO 64108-2613 Phone: 816-474-6550 Fax: 816-421-5547 E-mail: manstoetter@shb.com sddavis@shb.com MARS PETCARE: Recalls Dog Food on Possible Contamination -------------------------------------------------------- Mars Petcare US, Inc. is voluntarily recalling select five pound bags of Krasdale Gravy dry dog food sold in: -- Connecticut, -- Massachusetts, -- New Jersey, -- New York, and -- Pennsylvania The pet food is being recalled because it has the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, which can cause serious infections in dogs and cats, and, if there is cross contamination, in people, especially children, the aged, and people with compromised immune systems. The recalled product should not be sold or fed to pets. Pet owners should dispose of product in a safe manner (example, a securely covered trash receptacle) and return the empty bag to the store where purchased for a full refund. Salmonella can potentially be transferred to people handling this pet food, especially if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after having contact with the product or any surfaces exposed to the product. Healthy people potentially infected with Salmonella should monitor themselves for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever. Rarely, Salmonella can result in more serious ailments, including arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye irritation, and urinary tract symptoms. Consumers exhibiting these signs after having contact with this product should contact their healthcare providers. Pets with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting. Some pets will have only decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain. Well animals can be carriers and infect other animals or humans. If your pet has consumed the recalled product and has these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian. Recalled pet food Product: Krasdale Gravy dry dog food Size: 5 pound bag UPC Code: 7513062596 Best Buy Date: July 16 & 17, 2008 Best Buy Date Location: Back of bag Affected Stores: Various stores located in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. Mars Petcare is issuing this action out of an abundance of caution and it sincerely regrets any inconvenience to pet owners as a result of this announcement. This voluntary recall has been issued because the FDA detected Salmonella in a sample of Krasdale Gravy dry dog food with best buy dates of July 16 & 17, 2008 during a recent review. This product UPC has been blocked from retail sale at these locations. Additional information about the product is available on http://www.marspetcare.com.Pet owners who have questions about the voluntary recall should call (866) 298-8332, or visit the web site for more information. MERRILL LYNCH: $125M Research Reports Suit Settlement Approved -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted final approval to a $125,000,000 settlement of a suit related to research reports issued by Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. regarding securities of: Company Ticker Symbol Class Period Aether Systems AETH 11/15/1999 - 02/07/2001 B2B Internet HOLDRs Trust BHH 02/24/2000 - 04/08/2002 CMGI, Inc. CMGI 03/23/1999 - 11/14/2000 Doubleclick, Inc. DCLK 11/29/1999 - 04/15/2001 ETOYS, Inc. ETYS 06/17/1999 - 11/08/2000 EXCITE@HOME ATHM 06/07/1999 - 04/26/2001 Exodus Communications, Inc. EXDS 12/08/1999 - 06/19/2001 GoTo.com, Inc. GOTO 01/11/2001 - 06/06/2001 Homestore.com, Inc. HOMS 09/08/1999 - 09/21/2001 InfoSpace, Inc. INSP 12/06/1999 - 01/22/2001 Internet Architecture HOLDRs Trust IAH 02/24/2000 - 04/08/2002 Internet Capital Group, Inc. ICGE 08/30/1999 - 11/08/2000 Internet HOLDRs Trust HHH 09/23/1999 - 04/08/2002 Internet Infrastructure HOLDRs Trust IIH 02/24/2000 - 04/08/2002 iVillage, Inc. IVIL 11/09/1999 - 05/07/2001 Lifeminders Inc. LFMN 09/28/2000 - 01/31/2001 Looksmart, Ltd. LOOK 05/25/2000 - 01/11/2001 Openwave Systems, Inc. OPWV 10/16/2000 - 08/13/2001 PETS.COM, INC. IPET 03/08/2000 - 11/07/2000 Quokka Sports, Inc. QKKA 08/23/1999 - 01/09/2001 Merrill Lynch was named in dozens of class actions since 2001 that challenged the objectivity of the company's research recommendations related to securities of Internet companies. The stipulation of settlement provides for a cash payment of $125 million plus accruing interest. The settlement fund will amount to more than $133 million, the judge said in his order. The class consists of all persons who purchased the common stock (or depository receipts) of these companies during the periods listed or who purchased, in a private placement, Quokka Sports, Inc. 7% convertible subordinated promissory notes due Sept. 15, 2005. On the Net: http://www.merrilllynchsettlement.com. Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel is: Frederic S. Fox, Esq. Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP 805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10022 Attorneys for defendants Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc. and certain Individual Defendants are: Jay B. Kasner, Esq. Scott D. Musoff, Esq. Skadden Arps Slate Meacher & Flom LLP Four Times Square, New York, NY 10036 NAM TAI: N.Y. Court Denies Class Status for N.Y. Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied plaintiffs' motion seeking class certification for the consolidated suit, "Rocco v. Nam Tai Electronics et al., Lead Case No. 03-cv-01148-JES." Originally, the suit was commenced on Feb. 20, 2003 against the company and certain of its directors. The named plaintiffs purport to represent a putative class of persons who purchased the company's common shares from July 29, 2002 through Feb. 18, 2003. Plaintiffs have asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and allege that misrepresentations and/or omissions were made during the alleged class period concerning the partial reversal of an inventory provision and a charge to goodwill related to the firm's LCD Products segment. The company has filed an answer to the amended and consolidated complaint and oral argument on the plaintiffs' most recent motion for class certification was held on Feb. 1. The court recently decided that Lead Plaintiff Douglas Ward has the right to proceed to prosecute the case as an individual claim or he can seek leave to appeal the decision of the Court. A conference with the Court has been scheduled for October 23, 2007. The Company plans to continue to provide updates of material developments in these proceedings as they occur. The suit is "Michael Rocco v. Nam Tai Electronics, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 03-CV-1148," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Representing the plaintiffs are: Samuel Howard Rudman David AVI Rosenfeld Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP 200 Broadhollow Road, Ste 406 Melville, NY, 11747, USA Phone: 631-367-7100 Fax: 631-367-1173 E-mail: Srudman@cauleygeller.com or Drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com - and - Laurence D. Paskowitz Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow, LLP 100 Park Ave. New York, NY, 10017, USA Phone: 212-907-0881 Fax: 212-883-7081 Representing the company is: Stuart W. Gold Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP 825 Eighth Ave. New York, NY, 10019, USA Phone: (212) 474-1000 Fax: (212) 474-3700 E-mail: Sgold@cravath.com NCS PEARSON: Settles SAT Scoring Error Lawsuit for $2.85M ---------------------------------------------------------- Testing organizations the College Board and NCS Pearson, Inc. have agreed to pay a total of more than $2.85 million to students whose October 2005 SAT tests were scored incorrectly. The payment was arranged to settle a class action involving approximately 4,400 students who received low scores as a result of the scoring error. Each student will collect a minimum of $275 and have the ability to apply for a larger sum if they believe their damages are greater than that amount. The settlement would reimburse students for the cost of taking the SAT and sending the scores to colleges. Any remaining money would be given to a charity chosen by a judge. Joe Snodgrass, a St. Paul attorney who represents some students, said the two firms representing students had agreed to share a maximum of $900,000 in attorney fees. The settlement needs ratification by Judge Joan Ericksen of the U.S. District Court in St. Paul during a hearing scheduled for Nov. 29. For more information, contact: T. Joe Snodgrass, Esq. Larson King, LLP 2800 Wells Fargo Place, 30 East Seventh Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 (Ramsey Co.) Phone: 651-312-6500 Toll Free: 877-373-5501 Telecopier: 651-312-6618 NISSAN: Tex. Judge’s Son Withdraws Suit Over Odometers ------------------------------------------------------ Attorney T. John Ward Jr. of Longview, Texas has withdrawn a class action alleging Nissan’s odometers are designed to inflate driven mileage, Michelle Massey of The Southeast Texas Record reports. Mr. Ward's motion to withdraw did not explain his reason for leaving the Nissan class action, but the report noted that the withdrawal came after The New York Sun raised questions to him and his co-counsel whether the case might benefit from rulings by his father Judge T. John Ward, who is presiding over a nearly identical case against Honda in the same judicial district. Co-Counsel David Miller of Addison told the New York Sun that he saw no conflict with the younger Ward in the Nissan case, according to the report. The suit against Nissan was brought on behalf of plaintiff Rebecca Womack and others similarly situated in the Marshall division of the Eastern District of Texas. The class action alleges Nissan designed 2004 and newer vehicles with odometers that inflate driven mileage by at least 2 percent by installing a computer software within the vehicles that alters the odometer beyond manufacturer's design tolerance. Through these "intent to defraud" actions plaintiffs argue that their warranties were shortened by 700 to 1,600 miles and the vehicles' resale value was lower. Plaintiffs allege violation of the Federal Odometer Act. The suit is “Womack v. Nissan, Case No.: 2:06cv00479,” with Judge David Folsom presiding. NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Settles Lawsuit Over 2006 Derailment in Ala. -------------------------------------------------------------- Norfolk Southern Corp. has reached an agreement on Aug. 27 to settle a suit over a January collision of two trains in Lincoln, Ala., Amanda Gardner of Daily Home Online reports. Two trains collided on Jan. 18, 2006 in the area, spilling cyanide that threatened a one-mile area around the explosion site with eminent danger if the chemical had mixed with water. The settlement was reached on behalf of business owner Deborah J. Brasher and certain people in Lincoln. It groups the affected people into different two classes: the Evacuation Zone and Exposure Zone. A hearing to consider the approval of the settlement and the right to appear and object will be held Nov. 2 at 9 a.m. in the Hugo L. Black U.S. Courthouse in Birmingham. Norfolk Southern Corp. -- http://www.nscorp.com-- through its subsidiaries, engages in the rail transportation of raw materials, intermediate products, and finished goods primarily in the United States and parts of Canada. NORTHWESTERN CORP: Still Faces Suit Over Montana Power Shakeup -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Montana refused to dismiss Northwestern Corp. as a defendant in the class action, "McGreevey, et al. v. The Montana Power Co., et al., Case no. 2:03-cv-00001-SHE." The company was one of several defendants named in the class action, which was filed by former shareholders of The Montana Power Co., most of whom became shareholders of Touch America Holdings, Inc. as a result of a corporate reorganization of the Montana Power Co. The suit claims that the disposition of various generating and energy-related assets by The Montana Power Co. were void because of the failure to obtain shareholder approval for the transactions. Plaintiffs in the suit are thus seeking to reverse those transactions, or receive fair value for their stock as of late 2001, when plaintiffs claim shareholder approval should have been sought. The company is named as a defendant due to the fact that it purchased The Montana Power L.L.C., which plaintiffs are claiming is a successor to the Montana Power Co. In June 2006, the company and the "McGreevey" plaintiffs entered into an agreement to settle the claims that were brought. In November 2006, a Bankruptcy Court finally approved this agreement and the claims were discharged. The plaintiffs' attorneys and the company filed a joint motion to dismiss the claims against the company in the McGreevey lawsuits and no objections were filed. On March 16, 2007, the federal court denied the motions to dismiss the company from the McGreevey lawsuits questioning the benefits of the settlement to be received by the class members in the settlement and the authority of the plaintiffs' counsel to have negotiated the settlement without a class having been certified by the federal court. The company reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 8, 2007 Form 10- Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. The suit is "McGreevey, et al. v. Montana Power Co., et al., Case No. 2:03-cv- 00001-SEH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana under Judge Sam E. Haddon. Representing the plaintiffs are: Wade Dahood, Esq. Knight Dahood Mclean Everett & Dayton P.O. Box 727 Anaconda, MT 59711-0727 Phone: 406-563-3424 Fax: 406-563-7519 Milton Datsopoulos, Esq. Datsopoulos Macdonald & Lind 201 W. Main, Central Square Building, Suite 201 Missoula, MT 59802 Phone: 406-728-0810 Fax: 406-543-0134 Sean S. Frampton, Esq. Morrison & Frampton P.O. Box 1090 Whitefish, MT 59937 Phone: 406-862-9600 Fax: (406) 862-9611 - and - Allan M. McGarvey, Esq. McGarvey Heberling Sullivan & McGarvey, 745 S. Main Street Kalispell, MT 59901-2529 Phone: 406-752-5566 Fax: 406-752-7124 E-mail: amcgarvey@mcgarveylaw.com NORTHWESTERN CORP: Awaits Ruling on Fees in S.D. Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- NorthWestern Corp., d/b/a NorthWestern Energy, is awaiting a ruling by the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota regarding plaintiff attorneys’ fees in a shareholder class action pending against the company. In November 2005, the company and its directors were named defendants in a shareholder class action and derivative action, "City of Livonia Employee Retirement System v. Draper, et al." The plaintiff claims, among other things, that the directors breached their fiduciary duties by not sufficiently negotiating with Montana Public Power Inc. and Black Hills Corp., two entities that had made public, unsolicited offers to purchase NorthWestern. On April 26, 2006, Livonia amended its complaint to add allegations that company directors had erred in choosing the Babcock & Brown Infrastructure Limited (BBI) offer because it was not the most attractive offer they had received for the company. The parties have entered into a settlement agreement which provides that NorthWestern will redeem the existing shareholder rights plan either following shareholder approval of the Merger Agreement with BBI or upon termination of the Merger Agreement with BBI -- whichever occurs first. The Board may adopt a new shareholder rights plan if the shareholders approve adoption of such a plan in advance or, in the event that circumstances require timely implementation of such a plan, the Board seeks and receives approval from shareholders within 12 months after adoption. After limited confirmatory discovery, the settlement agreement has been filed. In December 2006 the federal court indicated it would not approve the settlement because it did not provide any benefit to the class members. Based on the federal court's order, the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice on the condition that the federal court would retain jurisdiction over any award of attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs' lawyers have filed a motion, seeking discovery in advance of its motion for an award of attorneys' fees. The motion was denied. Plaintiffs have filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs seeking $9.9 million to which the company have responded arguing that plaintiffs' lawyers are entitled to no fees. The plaintiffs filed a reply in May 2007. On May 24, 2007, the company notified the federal court of the MPSC unanimous direction to its staff to draft an order rejecting the proposed BBI transaction, noting that unless the BBI transaction was approved, the plaintiffs’ argument for benefit to the estate would be moot and suggested that the federal court delay any ruling until the Montana Public Service Commission (MPSC) reaches a final decision on the BBI transaction. On July 25, 2007, the company advised the federal court that the Merger Agreement was terminated based on the action by the MPSC denying consideration of the revised proposal and denying approval of the transaction. The company is awaiting a decision by the federal court and it believes that any award of attorneys' fees would be reimbursed by insurance proceeds, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. The suit is "City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System v. Draper, et al., Case No. 4:05-cv-04178-LLP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota under Judge Lawrence L. Piersol. Representing the plaintiffs are: Randall J. Baron, Esq. Darren J. Robbins, Esq. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 231-1058 Fax: (619) 231-7423 - and - Timothy J. Dougherty, Esq. Dougherty & Dougherty P.O. Box 1004 Sioux Falls, SD 57101-1004 Phone: 335-8586 Representing the defendants are: Filiberto Agusti, Esq. Scott T. Bielicki, Esq. David F. Rifkind, Esq. Andrew Sloniewsky, Esq. Steptoe and Johnson, LLP 1330 Connecticut Ave., NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202-429-6428, 202-429-6751, 202-429-8094 and 202-429-6759 E-mail: fagusti@steptoe.com, sbielicki@steptoe.com, drifkind@steptoe.com and asloniewsky@steptoe.com - and - Roberto Antonio Lange, Esq. Davenport, Evans, Hurwitz & Smith P.O. Box 1030 Sioux Falls, SD 57101-1030 Phone: 336-2880 Fax: 335-3639 E-mail: rlange@dehs.com OHALEE INC: Recalls FA-A70 Youth ATVs Lacking Parts, Label ---------------------------------------------------------- Ohalee Inc., of City of Industry, California, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 36 Ohalee FA-A70 Youth All-Terrain Vehicles. The company said these youth ATVs lack front brakes and a tire pressure gauge, the date of manufacture is not printed on side of the tires, and the front suspension is solid and does not allow for travel. Additionally, the flag pole bracket is not the correct size, and the handlebars do not have padding covering sharp edges. There is no storage location for the owner’s manual, and the manual itself does not contain complete information on the safe operation and maintenance of the ATV. These defects could result in an unsafe riding condition, posing a risk of injury to young drivers. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves the Ohalee FA-A70 Youth ATVs, which has the name “Ohalee” on the right and left side of each ATV. The 70cc size ATVs were available in the following colors: red, blue, and black. These recalled Youth ATVs were manufactured in China and are being sold by Odes Motorcycle Industry nationwide from June 2006 through December 2006 for about $360. Picture of recalled Youth ATVs: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07576.jpg Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the ATVs and contact the retailer for a full refund. Ohalee, Inc. will contact the consumers and notify them the full refund policy. For additional information, contact Ohalee toll-free at (866) 867-5976 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or visit their Web site: http://www.ohalee.com PHH CORP: Md. Court Partially Dismisses Suit Over $1.8B Buyout -------------------------------------------------------------- The Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland partially dismissed a consolidated class action opposing a sale of PHH Corp. to General Electric Capital Corp., and The Blackstone Group. Following the announcement of the $1.8 billion buyout in March 2007, two purported class actions were filed against the Company and each member of its Board of Directors in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland, the first of these actions also named GE and Blackstone. The plaintiffs seek to represent an alleged class consisting of all persons (other than the Company’s officers and Directors and their affiliates) holding the Company’s Common stock. In support of their request for injunctive and other relief, the plaintiffs allege that the members of the Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize stockholder value in approving the transaction. On April 5, 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the first filed complaint. On April 10, 2007, the claims against Blackstone were dismissed without prejudice. On May 11, 2007, the Court consolidated the two cases into one action. On July 27, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. This pleading did not name GE or Blackstone as defendants. It essentially repeated the allegations previously made against the members of the company's Board of Directors and added allegations that the disclosures made in the preliminary proxy statement filed with the SEC on June 18, 2007 omitted certain material facts. On Aug. 7, 2007, the Court dismissed the consolidated amended complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs’ claims could only be asserted derivatively, whereas the plaintiffs were seeking to assert their claims directly. The Court gave the plaintiffs the option of having the dismissal be with prejudice and without leave to amend, in which event they would be able to file a notice of appeal, or without prejudice and with leave to amend, in which event they would be able to serve a demand on the company's Board of Directors or file a pleading in which they attempt to demonstrate that demand would have been futile. PHH Corp. -- http://www.phh.com-- is an outsource provider of mortgage and fleet management services. The Company operates in three segments: Mortgage Production, Mortgage Servicing and Fleet Management Services. PHH CORP: Continues to Faces Several N.J Securities Fraud Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- PHH Corp. is still facing several purported securities fraud class actions that were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In March and April 2006, several class actions were filed against the company, its chief executive officer and its former chief financial officer in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Plaintiffs purport to represent a class consisting of all persons who purchased the company's common stock during certain time periods beginning March 15, 2005 in one case and May 12, 2005 in the other cases and ending March 1, 2006. They allege, among other things, that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The company provided no new development in the matter in its Aug. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. The first identified complaint is "Monica Salim, et al. v. PHH Corp., et al., Case No. 06-CV-01302," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Plaintiff firms in this or similar case: Baron & Budd, P.C. 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100 Dallas, TX, 75219 Phone: 1800-946-9646 E-mail: info@baronandbudd.com Brodsky & Smith, LLC 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39 Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004 Phone: 610.668.7987 Fax: 610-660-0450 E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com Federman & Sherwood 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720 Oklahoma City, OK, 73102 Phone: 405-235-1560 E-mail: wfederman@aol.com - and - Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. 261 Old York Road, Suite 423 Jenkintown, PA, 19046 Phone: 215.886.1900 E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net PLEXUS CORP: Faces Wis. Suits Over England Plant Closure -------------------------------------------------------- Two securities fraud class actions were filed against Plexus Corp. and company officers and/or directors: -- Dean A. Foate, -- F. Gordon Bitter, and -- John L. Nussbaum in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on June 25 and June 29, 2007 . The suits allege securities law violations and seek unspecified damages relating generally to the Company’s July 26, 2006 announcement of its fiscal fourth quarter earnings outlook and that the manufacturing facility in Maldon, England would be closed. Plexus Corp. -- http://www.plexus.com-- provides a range of product realization services to original equipment manufacturers and other technology companies in the wireline/networking, wireless infrastructure, medical, industrial/commercial, and defense/security/aerospace industries with a focus on complex and global fulfillment solutions, high-technology manufacturing and test services, and high-reliability products. It participates in the electronics manufacturing services industry. Plexus offers its customers the ability to outsource all stages of product realization, including development and design, materials procurement and management, prototyping and new product introduction, testing, manufacturing, product configuration, direct order fulfillment, logistics and test/repair. PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Faces Suit in Ore. Over Patient Data Theft -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action against Providence Health System in connection with the theft of computer discs and tapes with records of 365,000 patients is pending in Multnomah County Circuit Court (Ore.), it emerged in a report by the Associated Press. Steven Shields, who was a Providence information systems analyst, lost 10 computer discs and data tapes at his van in the driveway of his Milwaukie home in 2005. The records, some going back 20 years, contained information such as Social Security numbers and medical information. The records were stored without protective encryption. Providence had agreed to pay more than $95,000 to the state Department of Justice to settle its investigation, but admitted no violations. It also promised two years of credit protection to everyone whose records were stolen and agreed to pay patient claims for direct financial losses that may result from the theft. QC HOLDINGS: Settles Lawsuit by Loan Applicant in Arizona ---------------------------------------------------------- QC Holdings, Inc. has settled a lawsuit filed by an Arizona borrower alleging violation of the Arizona Deferred Presentment Companies Statute. Originally, the suit was filed by an Arizona customer in Superior Court of Pima County, Arizona, alleging that a loan granted to him violated the Statute. The plaintiff asserted various other claims based in tort, contract and violations of state law. The Company removed the case to federal court and filed a motion to compel arbitration. The Company and the customer have reached an oral agreement to settle the case for an immaterial amount. The Company expects this case to be dismissed with prejudice in the third quarter, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. QC Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.qcholdings.com/-- provides short-term consumer loans, known as payday loans. QC HOLDINGS: Mo. Court Mulls Arbitration Bid in Customers' Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri has yet to rule on QC Holdings, Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration in a purported class action filed against it over unsecured loans. The suit was filed on Oct. 13, 2006 by one of the company's Missouri customers as a purported class action. It alleges violations of the Missouri statute pertaining to unsecured loans under $500 and the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and a declaratory judgment that the arbitration agreement with the plaintiff is not enforceable on a variety of theories. The Company has not filed an answer, but has moved to compel arbitration of this matter. Plaintiff secured the right to have discovery regarding the Company’s arbitration provision, however, prior to the court’s ruling on the Company’s motion. The court heard oral arguments on the Company’s motion in June 2007. The Company is awaiting the court’s ruling on the Company’s motion to compel arbitration, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. QC Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.qcholdings.com/-- provides short-term consumer loans, known as payday loans. QC HOLDINGS: Still Faces N.C. Consumer Suit Over Payday Loans ------------------------------------------------------------- QC Holdings, Inc. continues to face a putative consumer fraud class action filed in the Superior Court of New Hanover County, North Carolina, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. On Feb. 8, 2005, the Company, two of its subsidiaries, including its subsidiary doing business in North Carolina, and Mr. Don Early, the Company’s Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, were sued in Superior Court of New Hanover County, North Carolina in a putative class action filed by James B. Torrence, Sr. and Ben Hubert Cline, who were customers of a Delaware state-chartered bank for whom the Company provided certain services in connection with the bank’s origination of payday loans in North Carolina, prior to the closing of the Company’s North Carolina branches in fourth quarter 2005. The lawsuit alleges that the Company violated various North Carolina laws, including the North Carolina Consumer Finance Act, the North Carolina Check Cashers Act, the North Carolina Loan Brokers Act, the state unfair trade practices statute and the state usury statute, in connection with payday loans made by the bank to the two plaintiffs through the Company’s retail locations in North Carolina. It alleges that the Company made the payday loans to the plaintiffs in violation of various state statutes, and that if the Company is not viewed as the “actual lenders or makers” of the payday loans, its services to the bank that made the loans violated various North Carolina statutes. Plaintiffs are seeking certification as a class, unspecified monetary damages, and treble damages and attorneys fees under specified North Carolina statutes. Plaintiffs have not sued the bank in this matter and have specifically stated in the complaint that plaintiffs do not challenge the right of out-of-state banks to enter into loans with North Carolina residents at such rates as the bank’s home state may permit, all as authorized by North Carolina and federal law. This case is in the preliminary stages. QC Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.qcholdings.com/-- provides short-term consumer loans, known as payday loans. As of Dec. 31, 2006, it operated 613 branches, with locations in Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin. The Company also provides other consumer financial products and services, such as check cashing services and money orders. QC Holdings operates primarily through its wholly owned subsidiaries, QC Financial Services, Inc and QC Services, Inc. QC Financial Services, Inc. is the 100% owner of QC Financial Services of California, Inc., Financial Services of North Carolina, Inc., QC Financial Services of Texas, Inc., Express Check Advance of South Carolina, LLC, QC Advance, Inc., Cash Title Loans, Inc. and QC Properties, LLC. On Dec. 1, 2006, it acquired Express Check Advance of South Carolina, LLC. RAIT FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in E.D. Pa. ------------------------------------------------------------- RAIT Financial Trust faces a purported securities fraud class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. The complaint, which is seeking class certification, was filed on Aug. 1, 2007 against RAIT Financial Trust, certain of its officers and trustees and the lead underwriters involved in its public offering of common shares in January 2007. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired RAIT securities between Jan. 10, 2007 and July 31, 2007. This action purports to assert claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiff alleges that, during the class period, RAIT did not adequately disclose that RAIT had provided TruPS to American Home Mortgage Investment Corp., or AHM, that the payment by AHM under the TruPS was supposedly in jeopardy and that RAIT did not adequately reserve for the risk of nonpayment by AHM. The plaintiff further alleges that, as a result, certain of RAIT’s statements, including statements in the registration statement, prospectus and prospectus supplement for RAIT’s January 2007 offering, were materially false and misleading. The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount. RAIT Financial Trust – http://www.raitft.com/-- formerly RAIT Investment Trust, is a specialty finance company that provides a set of debt financing options to the real estate industry. It originates and invests in real estate-related assets that are underwritten through an integrated investment process. SANOFI-AVENTIS US: New Plaintiffs Named in Discrimination Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Three former employees of Sanofi-Aventis U.S. joined a sexual discrimination and harassment lawsuit filed against the company earlier this year, AFP reports. The original suit was filed by Karen Bellifemine, a female sales representative at the Bridgewater, New Jersey-based firm. It was filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan on March 14. It is seeking more than $300 million in compensation for alleged discrimination against female employees in terms of promotion and pay. Ms. Bellifemine started working at Sanofi-Aventis U.S. in 1995 and is still employed there. Those who joined the suit are Zeoli, Michelle Popa and Sue Sullivan, who said they resigned in 2006-2007. A motion for class certification on behalf of approximately 6,000 women will be filed in the next few months once statistics of the alleged wrongdoing were gathered, said a lawyer for the plaintiffs, Steven Wittels of Sanford Wittels & Heisler LLP. Mr. Wittels said "each woman is entitled to up to approximately 500,000 dollars in damages for compensatory back and future wages and punitive damages," making the $300 million demand modest in comparison. Sanofi-Aventis US said in a statement the women's allegations are not true. The suit is docketed 1:2007cv02207 in the New York Southern District Court. Representing the plaintiffs is: David W. Sanford, Esq. Sanford Wittels & Heisler LLP 1666 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 310 Washington, District of Columbia 20009 Phone: 202-742-7777 Fax: 202-742-7776 SUPREMA SPECIALTIES: Auditor, Underwriters Settle Suit for $19M ---------------------------------------------------------------- The former auditor of cheese company Suprema Specialties, as well as several former company board members and underwriters, signed a memorandum of understanding to pay $19 million to settle a class action in relation to the collapse of the company, Greg Saitz of Star-Ledger reports. The settling parties are BDO Seidman, former board members Rudolph Acosta Jr., Paul Desocio and Barry Rutcofsky, and underwriters Janney Montgomery Scott, Pacific Growth Equities and Roth Capital Partners. Suprema is accused of inflating sales by $560 million in the seven years before its collapse by entering into a series of fake transactions with its major customers, boosting sales, and allowing Suprema to borrow more and more money from lenders. The fraud also helped it sell some $41 million in stock to investors during a November 2001 stock offering. Suprema's top two executives, co-founder Mark Cocchiola and finance chief Steven Venechanos, who were convicted on dozens of criminal counts, remain defendants in the class action, according to the report. TOYS R US: Recalls Coloring Cases that Exceed Lead Standard ----------------------------------------------------------- Toys "R" Us Inc., of Wayne, New Jersey, in cooperation with U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 27,000 Imaginarium wooden coloring cases. The company said the printed ink on the outer packaging of the wood case contains lead. Also, some of the black watercolor paint contains excessive levels of lead, which violates the federal lead paint standard. No injuries have been reported. The recall involves the Imaginarium brand 213 Piece Wooden Coloring Case which includes crayons, pastels, colored pencils, fiber pens, paintbrush, pencil, water colors, palette, white paint, ruler and pencil sharpener in a light tan wooden carrying case. The case measures about 14 inches high by 19 inches wide. These recalled wooden coloring cases were manufactured in China and are being sold by Toys "R" Us stores nationwide and toysrus.com from October 2006 through August 2007 for about $20. Pictures of recalled wooden coloring cases: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07299a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07299b.jpg Consumers are advised to immediately take the products away from children and return the item to the nearest Toys "R" Us store for store credit. For more information, contact Toys "R" Us at (800) TOYSRUS/869-7787 between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. ET Monday through Saturday, and between 10 a.m. and 7 p.m. on Sunday, or visit the company’s Web site: http://www.toysrus.com * Bryan Cave Hires Senior Associate for U.K. Practice ------------------------------------------------------ U.S. law firm Bryan Cave has hired Olswang senior associate Irina Tymczyszyn as senior associate in the firm’s commercial litigation team in the U.K., The Lawyer.com reports. Bryan Cave claims it is the first class action firm in the U.K. Its London managing partner said the firm's U.K. offering is anticipated to grow by 70 per cent in the coming year to 50 fee-earners. Bryan Cave -- http://www.bryancave.com/-- has 15 offices around the world, including Milan and Hamburg. New Securities Fraud Cases AMERICAN MORTGAGE: Murray Frank Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP has filed a class action in the Eastern District of New York on behalf of shareholders who purchased or can trace their purchases of American Home Mortgage Investment Corp. (OTC: AHMIQ.PK) common stock to the Company's April 30, 2007 secondary public offering. The Complaint charges that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act, because the Offering Materials contained a number of untrue statements of material fact and misleading omissions. As a result, class members purchased the Complaint AHM common stock at an inflated price and suffered damages when the price plummeted in July and early August 2007. The Offering Materials consisted of: (a) the Registration Statement dated December 15, 2004, and made effective as of April 30, 2007, by the Prospectus Supplement; (b) the Prospectus dated January 6, 2005, offering $761,875,000 of securities for sale, and made effective as of April 30, 2007, by the Prospectus Supplement; (c) the Prospectus Supplement dated April 30, 2007 (the "Prospectus Supplement") issued in connection with the offering of four million (4,000,000) shares of AHM common stock; and (d) all documents incorporated by reference into each and every document listed in (a)-(c)of this paragraph (collectively referred to as the "Offering Materials"). Interested parties may move the court no later than October 1, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Bradley P. Dyer Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP Phone: 800-497-8076 or 212-682-1818 Fax: 212-682-1892 E-mail: info@murrayfrank.com QIAO XING: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP has filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Qiao Xing Universal Telephone Inc. during the period June 30, 2004 through July 16, 2007, inclusive. The complaint charges Qiao Xing and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that the Company had materially overstated its net income for the years ended December 31, 2003, December 31, 2004, and December 31, 2005; (2) that the Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial reporting controls; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Interested parties may move the court no later than October 8, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Bradley P. Dyer Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP Phone: 800-497-8076 or 212-682-1818 Fax: 212-682-1892 Email: info@murrayfrank.com TWEEN BRANDS: Schiffrin Barroway Files O. Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP files a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of all purchasers of securities of Tween Brands, Inc. from May 23, 2007 through August 21, 2007, inclusive. The Complaint charges Tween and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Tween Brands and its subsidiaries operate as a specialty retailer for "tween girls," aged 7 to 14 years, in the United States. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that consumer demand had materially declined for the Company's products; (2) that the Company was facing significantly increased expenses in the form of higher rent and marketing costs; (3) that two States had shifted their sales tax holidays from July to August, which would materially impact the Company's financial results for the quarter due to the Company's concentration in those States; (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about its future business operations and prospects were lacking in a reasonable basis when made. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members. Interested parties may move the court no later than October 23, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Darren J. Check, Esq. Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 E-mail: info@sbtklaw.com ********* A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches, collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related liabilities. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Glenn Ruel Senorin, Ma. Cristina Canson, and Janice Mendoza, Editors. Copyright 2007. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300. * * * End of Transmission * * *